Appeal No. 2003-1993
Application No. 09/470,526
We agree with appellants that the examiner has not established with a
preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of the disclosure of the specific
chemical structures of a polynucleotide comprising the coding sequence set forth in
SEQ ID NO:1, as well as teachings in the specification on how to test for wee1 activity
and teachings of the areas of the wee1 gene that can be altered without disturbing
substrate recognition are insufficient to describe a wee1 polynucleotide having at least
80% identity to the entire coding region of SEQ ID NO:1. What is evident from the
record is those of ordinary skill in the art were aware that most of the variations in
amino acid sequences of WEE1 are in the amino terminus, while the carboxy end of the
genes are relatively conserved. Those of skill in the art were also aware that the
carboxyl terminus and the central portion of the WEE1 protein from S. pombe contain
the protein kinase domains and sequence crucial for substrate recognition and
catalysis. Thus, those of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from reading
the disclosure that the inventors had invented the isolated wee1 having the specific
nucleotide and amino acid sequences and variations of these sequences with
mutations in described specific areas of Wee1, while avoiding the introduction of
mutations in other regions. This teaching, coupled with the ability to test for functional
mutants with the assays provided for in the specification, supports appellants' position
that the inventors sufficiently described and were in possession of the invention as
claimed, at the time of filing of the patent application.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007